Creationist's Snowman Analogy

[Mimimom]

Ok so I saw this posted on a friend's facebook page:

This seems like a silly comparison to me, but I'm pleading ignorance here. I am a new atheist and have done a little reading up on evolution, but am in no way a scholar. What arguments would you use to rebut this?

[mymistake]

*pic of a puddle of water*

 

Oh look at that hole.  The hole is exactly the shape of the water.  Clearly that hole must have been intelligently designed.  If the hole was just a fraction of an inch bigger or smaller then it wouldn't fit the shape of the water anymore.  Only an intelligent designer could have made the hole match the water so perfectly.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Evolution does not work by random chance.  It works based on beneficial mutations in a species genome which are prompted by selective pressures in the species environment.  Those best suited to survive in the environment are more likely to reproduce and pass their genes on to subsequent generations.  Those less adapted will eventually die out.

[RipVanWinkle]

Great synopsis. It takes real talent to summarize a complex subject in a few simple words. bill

[Mimimom]

Evolution does not work by random chance.  It works based on beneficial mutations in a species genome which are prompted by selective pressures in the species environment.  Those best suited to survive in the environment are more likely to reproduce and pass their genes on to subsequent generations.  Those less adapted will eventually die out.

Thank you that was just what I was looking for. The analogy seemed absurd to me but almost so much so that I couldn't quite figure out the response. It's amazing how many likes and comments of "So true!!" this got. And it was posted by someone I've considered to be fairly intelligent...law degree and such. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

Evolution does not work by random chance.  It works based on beneficial mutations in a species genome which are prompted by selective pressures in the species environment.  Those best suited to survive in the environment are more likely to reproduce and pass their genes on to subsequent generations.  Those less adapted will eventually die out.

Thank you that was just what I was looking for. The analogy seemed absurd to me but almost so much so that I couldn't quite figure out the response. It's amazing how many likes and comments of "So true!!" this got. And it was posted by someone I've considered to be fairly intelligent...law degree and such. 

 

Glad I could help.

[Thurisaz]

 

Evolution does not work by random chance.  It works based on beneficial mutations in a species genome which are prompted by selective pressures in the species environment.  Those best suited to survive in the environment are more likely to reproduce and pass their genes on to subsequent generations.  Those less adapted will eventually die out.

Thank you that was just what I was looking for. The analogy seemed absurd to me but almost so much so that I couldn't quite figure out the response. It's amazing how many likes and comments of "So true!!" this got. And it was posted by someone I've considered to be fairly intelligent...law degree and such. 

 

 

This works because babblical cretinists know jack shit about what evolutionary theory really says... and they know jack shit about science as a whole too. To them, if it sounds like science (you know, big complicated words and such) then it is science. And as they "know exactly" what science says they see no need to ever verify their opinions.

 

The few ones who really might have an interest in verification, that is.

[Fweethawt]

What arguments would you use to rebut this?

Rebuttal -- As with snakes and donkeys, snowmen do not talk.

[francesco]

evolution is a process over the long time, not just like their version of creation which was happened in one time

 

 

I once heard their boeing 747 argument that the chance of evolution is like tornado creating a boeing 747

they forget that it took a long process to have a modern airplane, from only conceptual of flying machine, flying machine that uncontrollable, first controllable airplane,............, modern airplane 

 

even airplane design is more like evolution process as people keep learning and improving many of the design in order to best suited many aspects of flying

the example of airplane design evolution in here http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/2011_q4/2/

 

creationism logic is so absurd

[sdelsolray]

Ok so I saw this posted on a friend's facebook page:

This seems like a silly comparison to me, but I'm pleading ignorance here. I am a new atheist and have done a little reading up on evolution, but am in no way a scholar. What arguments would you use to rebut this?

Try using the formation of the snowflakes themselves.  How did they form?  Just because a human made a snowman from millions of snowflakes does not mean everything (or anything else) was made by their chosen sky fairy.  And, snowmen are not life forms.  They do not talk.

[Bhim]

Actually the example of snowflakes is quite apt. Snowflakes are complex in appearance and could be mistaken as being man made. But the crystallization of water is energetically favorable, and happens without any "intelligent" designer. Snowflakes are a crude example of self-assembly, which is how complex biological structures are produced.

[creative]

God must have been bored with making humans, and in the Christmas spirit, started making talking snowmen.
And if they take Jesus in there hearts before they melt they will go to snowman heaven where Santa is waiting for them at the gate.

[par4dcourse]

Another boring variation on the "watchmaker" fallacy. I don't understand basic scientific principles, therefore god didit.

[ExCBooster]

I guess what I'll never understand about these "too complex! God did it!" people is that... they are aware that the vast, vast, VAST majority of life is, you know, bacteria? Lots, and lots, and lots of bacteria. Heck, 90% of the cells in YOU, right now, are bacteria. They're just really small. Only 10% of your cells are actually you. More complex does not equal more successful. Sponges, for example, are just one example of life getting less complex. Good luck even trying to FIND us on the tree of life. If this thing were to scale, the "animals" section would be microscopically tiny (we're in metazoa, which includes everything from me to hagfish, to fruit flies). Everything in blue? Bacteria. The titanic majority of life on this planet is single-celled. Why? Because it's stupidly successful. It has nothing to do with complexity, and everything to do with success (survive and reproduce - the bar's set pretty low, and the bacterial colony in those sketchy leftovers in the fridge are total champs).

[RosebudMarie]

I think most of the lure of religion is finding meaning to our life. We want to think we are more important than a single cell organism.

[mwc]

 

What arguments would you use to rebut this?

Rebuttal -- As with snakes and donkeys, snowmen do not talk.

 

     No shit.  That's exactly what I was thinking.

 

     Snowmen are piles of snow that don't do jack except sit there then melt.  According to the bible we're fucking dirt balls that came to life when god blew magic air up our noses and had rib helper wives yanked out of us when the rest of the critters weren't up to snuff.  Go on creationists.  Go out in your yards and give those carrot noses and good BJ and see if that sparks any life into Frosty.  Now rip his snowy guts out while you dig around for his wife.

 

     There's nothing to rebut except that you don't need to rebut every stupid thing that xians say and/or do.

 

          mwc

[Guest end3]

Ok, here's a question out of ignorance.  What little I have looked into it.  Why do we see one species that hasn't changed in a zillion years while another had to miraculously evolve in what would be a relatively short time. 

[mymistake]

Ok, here's a question out of ignorance.  What little I have looked into it.  Why do we see one species that hasn't changed in a zillion years while another had to miraculously evolve in what would be a relatively short time. 

 

First of all for most fossils all we can see are the bones.  Other things can change even if the bones don't change much.  Yes I realize "hasen't changed in X million years" is a phrase that gets thrown around a lot.  However when things are alive we can look at all kinds of traits and notice how those are changing.  We identify sub spices that way even if it doesn't show on the skeletons.  For those few species who have not chanced is a measurable way in millions of years well we know their environments changed in temperature and chemically so they probably adapted to those changes.

 

As for why sometimes the changes are fast and others not hardly at all - that is the environment.  When an individual is born that doesn't fit any niche that individual dies out and leaves no trace.  But once in a while a new variation arrives just after a new niche was created by changes in the environment.  When that happens the new variation has a tremendous advantage.  The offspring that best exploit the new condition multiply.  Over time it becomes a new species.  If the old species still have a niche it will remain for as long as the conditions do unless it gets displaced by a more successful competitor.  

[hereticzero]

I could respond that when snowmen melt, they evaporate just like 'evidence' Christians produce to prove their argument.

[hereticzero]

Ok, here's a question out of ignorance.  What little I have looked into it.  Why do we see one species that hasn't changed in a zillion years while another had to miraculously evolve in what would be a relatively short time. 

Virus change into a new species with every infection. Our study of species has not spanned 'a zillion years' so we don't know what has evolved for a zillion years. Our universe is much younger than a zillion years and so are the species on Earth, including man. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Ok, here's a question out of ignorance.  What little I have looked into it.  Why do we see one species that hasn't changed in a zillion years while another had to miraculously evolve in what would be a relatively short time. 

Because once a species has successfully adapted to its environment, the selective pressures that produce the mutations are no longer effective.